Analogy occupies an important place in scientific research.
Inferences by analogy: the concept and structure. Abstract
An analogy is an inference in which the similarity of objects in some respects leads to the conclusion that the similarity of these objects in other traits
The inference by analogy is as follows: if comparing the two objects, it is established that the object A has the features of absd, and the object B has the signs of abs, then make a guessing conclusion that the object B has a sign of d. Schematically, the inference structure by analogy can be written as follows:
And has signs of absd. B has signs of abs. Therefore, B has the sign d.
Example. During the investigation of the criminal case on the fire in the warehouse, the investigators found that the fire broke out before the audit; on the day of the fire, the warehouse manager was away; in the warehouse, due to systematic theft, there was a great shortage of goods; the fire was caused by a deliberate arson of a warehouse by a third party who received a reward for arson from the warehouse manager.
Investigating another case of a warehouse fire, the investigator found that here, as in the first case, the fire had occurred before the audit; on the day of the fire, the warehouse manager was away, a large shortage of goods was found in the warehouse, which arose as a result of theft for a long time, the fire occurred as a result of arson. On the basis of similarity of the named signs of the second case with signs of the first case the assumption (version) is put forward that in the second case the warehouse manager is involved in a fire in a warehouse.
An analogy is an inference in which the movement of thought occurs from the individual to the individual, from partial to partial. The initial knowledge in the analogy is the knowledge of a particular subject. By inference, by analogy, signs belonging to one single object are transferred to another single object: in our example, the sign (“warehouse manager is involved in the arson of the warehouse”), established during the investigation of one case, transferred to another case. Analogy, therefore, is a conclusion from the known to the unknown, its conclusion is a new knowledge of the individual, obtained through mediation.
Analogy, like any logical form, is a reflection of certain connections and relationships of objects of reality. The possibility of inference by analogy is due to the necessary, natural nature of the connection of the signs of objects. If there was no connection between the signs of the subject and each subject contained a set of random properties and signs, then from the knowledge of the signs of one subject could not go where the knowledge of the signs and another subject. But since there is a stable connection and dependence between the features of the object, the similarity of the two objects with one feature is a natural assumption about the similarity of these objects in other features.
In centuries of practice, people have been convinced that if one object, which has the signs of abs, has a sign of d, then another object, with signs of abs, can have a sign of d. Billions of times reflected, such a connection of objects and their features has become entrenched in our consciousness in the form of inference by analogy.
The direct or logical basis of the conclusions by analogy is the following position: if two objects are similar in one feature, they may be similar in other features found in one of the comparative objects.
The analogy gives conclusions that are not reliable, but only plausible. This is explained by the fact that comparative objects, no matter how similar they are to each other, always have features and differences. And it may happen that the sign d, inherent in the object A, is exactly such a sign that the object A differs from the object B and therefore the object B does not contain it. In this case, the conclusion B has the sign d will be false.
The degree of probability of conclusions in inferences by analogy depends on a number of conditions:
From the number of comparative items. The more established oriental features in objects, the higher the probability of inference by analogy. But only a number of overlapping features are not decisive. The number of features of comparative objects may be unambiguous, but if these features are secondary, accidental, the analogy will be wrong. Therefore, one of the important conditions for increasing the probability of inference in the analogy is the nature of the compared features. The more similar features and the more significant they are, the more likely the conclusion. The conclusion by analogy is the more valuable, the fewer features that distinguish comparative objects, and the less significant they are. The third important condition for the logical persuasiveness of the conclusion in inferences by analogy is the connection of comparative features. The probability of the conclusion is greater the more closely related features (abs) are related to each other and the more significant their connection with feature (d), which is transferred to the subject under study. The transferred sign (a) should be as odious as possible with the signs (abs) on the basis of which one object is likened to another. If the object in respect of which we infer by analogy has a feature incompatible with the attribute ascribed to it, then the analogy is impossible.
Analogy occupies an important place in scientific research. It is especially fruitfully used in the initial stages of cognition. Analogy is one of the means of logical elaboration of factual material and hypotheses. The history of science knows many cases where scientific conclusions were obtained by inference by analogy. For example, by analogy with the waves on the surface of water, the laws of propagation of sound and light were discovered; the analogy between the propagation of heat and the propagation of electricity made it possible to transfer the comparisons developed for the phenomena of heat to the phenomena of electricity; the analogy drawn between the motion of elastic layers and the motion of gas molecules made it possible to calculate the gas pressure, and so on.
The analogy is widely used not only in science in the study of natural phenomena, but also in the social sciences in the study of social phenomena.
Some logicians distinguish between the analogy of objects and the analogy of relations.
Under the analogy of objects is understood such an inference, which uses two single objects, and a figurative feature is the property of one of these objects. When, for example, two comparative objects have a group similarity of features and a new feature found in one of the objects is transferred to another object, such a conclusion will have the analogy of objects.
The analogy of relations is an inference in which not two separate objects, but two relations between objects are likened to each other. For example, F. Engels likens the relationship between formal and dialectical logic to the relationship between arithmetic and higher mathematics.
There are also an exact analogy and a simple (inaccurate) analogy.
An exact analogy is an analogy in which the conclusion is made on the basis of the knowledge that the transferred sign (d) depends on the sign of similarity (abs).
A simple analogy is an analogy where it is not known whether the tolerated trait (d) is dependent on the similarity traits (abs) or not.
An exact analogy yields conclusions of a higher degree of probability that are close to reliable than a simple analogy, the conclusions of which may be the least probable.
The analogy is the logical basis of the conclusions obtained using the modeling method. The method of modeling is that when recognizing a certain object using a second object that replaces the first.
An object that is of direct interest to the researcher and is replaced by a second object is called the original. And the object, which replaces the original, is called a model. The modeling method allows you to study a subject not directly, but indirectly, through another subject (model). During modeling, as in the analogy, knowledge of one subject (model) is transferred to another subject (original). The logical form of such a conclusion is inference by analogy. Based on the affiliation of the model S of the features abcd and the affiliation of the original S1 to the properties of the abc, it is concluded that the property d found in the model S also belongs to the original.
Philosophy and mythology: historical origins. Abstract
Many philosophical schools originated in mythological soil, which in one way or another explained the natural and other aspects of human life. Over time, mythological influences on philosophy are significantly reduced and today have little effect on modern philosophical thought.
The history of philosophy gives a huge number of pictures of the universe, created by both individual philosophers and certain philosophical schools. It not only enriches the worldview of man, but also protects against the common mistakes that worldview is capable of. The first steps of historical and philosophical research led to the conclusion that philosophy as a worldview phenomenon appears in the process of such a division of human activity, when there is a need for intellectual development of reality at the most general level of its vision.
Chronologically, this process occurs in different countries at different times. Evidence of this are the monuments of philosophical culture, which confirm that philosophy originated in ancient Egypt, China, India, Babylon, and later in Europe, especially Greece and Rome.
The philosophy begins with the question of the unity of things, the integrity of the world. And in order for this question to appear in the human consciousness, it took millennia of practical transformation of some things into others, a practical-mental separation from the circle of these things that were used as a means of transforming all others.
The first ideas about a single origin and a single basis of all things were associated with the use of water in irrigated agriculture. They originated in Egypt in the III-II millennia BC. Using water to irrigate fields and making sure in practice that nothing arises without water, but, on the contrary, everything dies, dies and decomposes, the Egyptians came to the conclusion that all things arise from water. Water for the Egyptians was the basis of growing crops, a universal tool for livelihoods. Therefore, it is not surprising that it was put by the Egyptians at the heart of all things.
The short narrative ideas same is observed in ancient Babylonia. Using the water of the Tigris and Euphrates to irrigate fields, the Babylonians, like the Egyptians, formed the idea that all things come from water, that water is the basis of all things.